Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is aggregated history, not a forecast, and points to the paid forecast offering. It does not mention edge cases like no data availability, but for a simple read-only lookup, the provided context is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (two required params, no output schema), and the description explains what it returns, when to use it, and its limitations. It is complete for the tool's complexity without over-explaining.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param semantics beyond the schema, only referring to the pair generically. The schema already provides full descriptions for both agency and naics, so the description is not required to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides historical closing-price range for an agency and NAICS pair, with specific metrics (10th percentile, median, 90th percentile, average competing offers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on price benchmarking and explicitly clarifying it is not a forecast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to call this tool ('when the user asks what a contract in this market usually goes for, or wants a benchmark before pricing a bid') and what not to use it for (forecasts are paid and located elsewhere). This gives clear usage guidance and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.